RoyalDude wrote:But that's the genius of Dougy Wilson, here I was thinking that Howden was the pick. But hey, I ain't paid the big bucks to run an NHL team. The beauty of Gillis is he justified trading the pick for that bum Ballard cause he didn't like what was available. Hahaha! You know who went right after Howden? Kuznetsov! FFS! Most scouts agree that he is the best player not playing in the NHL. Wants to stay in Russkie until the Olympics then plans on joining Ovie in Washington.

But here's the Beauty of Dougy Wilson, he traded Coyle for Brent Burns and not like say a Ballard for instance. Burns is a monster right now!

I think the genius of Doug Wilson remains to be seen.

The Sharks have never won a Stanley Cup Final, let alone get there.

Perhaps this paragraph of yours can be re-visited if the above changes.

Until that time however, I don't see the point in "pumping San Jose's tires" (or Florida's, or Philadelphia's, etc., etc.), when the Canucks have out-performed these teams on average since Mike Gillis took over.

Cody starting off the same way he ended. 3 points in 4 games which isn't terrible by any stretch especially considering the team has scored 4 goals in 4 games. But, if my count is correct, on the ice for 6 out 8 ES goals against and -4....that's not so good. An atrocious 42.4% on faceoffs.

tantalum wrote:Cody starting off the same way he ended. 3 points in 4 games which isn't terrible by any stretch especially considering the team has scored 4 goals in 4 games. But, if my count is correct, on the ice for 6 out 8 ES goals against and -4....that's not so good. An atrocious 42.4% on faceoffs.

And I think this is why trading Cody Hodgson was ultimately a good decision. Unless he's on your Top 6 surrounded by defensive stalwarts, he's going to have just as many negatives as positives.

The only thing I'll say about Hodgson and the Hodgson deal, is question as to why they moved him for a 50/50 risk in Kassian.

I mean, moving Hodgson because of 'daddy issues' and a lack of ability to play certain roles is one thing, but why not move him for a piece that could have helped us now during what was the Canucks' window?

Hindsight is 20/20, but for instance, why not package Hodgson and Schneider for someone immediate help on the Top 6? I wonder how the Canucks would have done against the Kings that year had they had this? (subtract - the Luongo/Schneider drama).

tantalum wrote:Cody starting off the same way he ended. 3 points in 4 games which isn't terrible by any stretch especially considering the team has scored 4 goals in 4 games. But, if my count is correct, on the ice for 6 out 8 ES goals against and -4....that's not so good. An atrocious 42.4% on faceoffs.

And I think this is why trading Cody Hodgson was ultimately a good decision. Unless he's on your Top 6 surrounded by defensive stalwarts, he's going to have just as many negatives as positives.

The only thing I'll say about Hodgson and the Hodgson deal, is question as to why they moved him for a 50/50 risk in Kassian.

I mean, moving Hodgson because of 'daddy issues' and a lack of ability to play certain roles is one thing, but why not move him for a piece that could have helped us now during what was the Canucks' window?

Hindsight is 20/20, but for instance, why not package Hodgson and Schneider for someone immediate help on the Top 6? I wonder how the Canucks would have done against the Kings that year had they had this? (subtract - the Luongo/Schneider drama).

Moving Cody wasn't the problem. He just should not have been moved on the eve go the playoffs for a player who could not and did not help us in the playoffs. There would have been a lot of takers for Cody in the off season. Package him and Luongo....

I don't know...shoulda, woulda, coulda is pretty much like RDs 20/20 hindsight.

We can say there would be takers but at what value? Consider that AV was not going to use him in any tangible capacity. They were feeding him protected minutes and he was getting eaten alive in possession. Whether they traded him or not they were going to acquire a Pahlsson type of player as that was what AV wanted and he was comfortable with. He was going to find himself stapled to the bench or eating popcorn down the stretch and in the playoffs. His value wasn't likely to go any higher and was more likely to go lower. Especially if they felt there was a very real threat of a trade request coming in the off season (which wouldn't have been a shocker given they were demanding more icetime...confirmed by his agent before he realize how silly it was to confirm it and removed the tweets).

And you weren't going to trade him for a veteran pending free agent.

In short, it is quite likely that he was traded at peak value as a canuck. But that is also impossible to tell, though I think the trends and personalities involved lend more weight to this view.

Hockey Widow wrote:Moving Cody wasn't the problem. He just should not have been moved on the eve go the playoffs for a player who could not and did not help us in the playoffs. There would have been a lot of takers for Cody in the off season. Package him and Luongo....

Great point.

The timing of the trade was quite odd, and may have also sent an indirect message to the team that Gillis didn't believe that this core had it in them to win NOW, and that making a trade for possible future gains was the best move for the team.

Once that trade was made, it almost seemed as though the Canucks stopped being a high flying offensive team......and started to focus more on shutting down opponents with a more defensive oriented style.

RoyalDude wrote:But here's the Beauty of Dougy Wilson, he traded Coyle for Brent Burns and not like say a Ballard for instance. Burns is a monster right now!

Your comparable is White for Ehrhoff. Genius, I know.

I'm a big believer in accountability, so I don't think we get to call Wilson, Holmgren, or GIllis for that matter, a "genius" until they actually do something Dude.

And call me crazy, but all three haven't done shit all in the "genius" category until it results in a cup.

Everybody on planet earth knows that Erhoff was a salary dump for the sharks as they was up against it. But hey keep on rockin in the Free world with your biased gillis opinions. Speaking of Erhoff, gillis let him walk because of the domino affect of trading for Ballard had on the cap. Seems like GMs loveto dump Erhoff for cap reasons

Speaking of, who out of san jose, vancouver, minnesota, florida won these trades?

Setoguchi, Coyle, and a first for Burns

Bernier, Grabner, and a first for Ballard

Better yet, who came out on the shit end if the stick?

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

RoyalDude wrote:But that's the genius of Dougy Wilson, here I was thinking that Howden was the pick. But hey, I ain't paid the big bucks to run an NHL team. The beauty of Gillis is he justified trading the pick for that bum Ballard cause he didn't like what was available. Hahaha! You know who went right after Howden? Kuznetsov! FFS! Most scouts agree that he is the best player not playing in the NHL. Wants to stay in Russkie until the Olympics then plans on joining Ovie in Washington.

But here's the Beauty of Dougy Wilson, he traded Coyle for Brent Burns and not like say a Ballard for instance. Burns is a monster right now!

I think the genius of Doug Wilson remains to be seen.

The Sharks have never won a Stanley Cup Final, let alone get there.

Perhaps this paragraph of yours can be re-visited if the above changes.

Until that time however, I don't see the point in "pumping San Jose's tires" (or Florida's, or Philadelphia's, etc., etc.), when the Canucks have out-performed these teams on average since Mike Gillis took over.

I hear ya great brown warrior of Bombay but I am curious how bad the gillis vs Wilson head to head stat looks now after gillis losing the last 10 games against the sharks and I mean losses like in shit canned losses

"I just want to say one word to you. Just one word. Are you listening? - Plastics." - The Graduate

RoyalDude wrote:I hear ya great brown warrior of Bombay but I am curious how bad the gillis vs Wilson head to head stat looks now after gillis losing the last 10 games against the sharks and I mean losses like in shit canned losses

Bombay?! I'm straight outta Gotham yo.

As far as San Jose goes, they're a damn good team right now and are at their peak.

Since we're using irrelevant stats, I guess I can say that with our 3-1 record, we're on pace for 121-122 points this season.

My best advice is to not be so overly negative/critical and just enjoy the ride.

Horvat and Shinkaruk look extremely promising, and I don't think Gaunce will be too bad either. Kesler should be a decent player for atleast another 4-5 years (maybe more), and I think the twins will be good for a few more seasons as well.

I don't think it's too farfetched to say that guys like Shinkaruk, Horvat, and Gaunce will become impact players while the twins and Kesler will still be close to their current level or even 2011 level.

More importantly however, we have a good Christian man in David Booth and he is an excellent spiritual leader within our lockerroom.

The Brown Knight wrote:More importantly however, we have a good Christian man in David Booth and he is an excellent spiritual leader within our lockerroom.

Truth, why I heard that just this morning David found a troll lurking in the corner of the lockerroom and said to it:

"Thy heart is not right in the sight of God! Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee! For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Acts chapter 8 verses 21-23."